M/S.Sri Murugan Agencies vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Sri Murugan Agencies, filed two writ petitions before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging orders passed by tax authorities. WP(MD) No. 22329 of 2026 challenged an order dated 28.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. WP(MD) No. 22361 of 2026 challenged an order dated 23.09.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner contended that both impugned orders confirmed identical demands, indicating a duplication of the same demand. The petitioner expressed willingness to deposit 100% of the disputed tax in one of the cases as a condition for fresh adjudication.
Held
The Court held that the impugned orders suffered from duplication of demand, as submitted by the petitioner. Consequently, the Court quashed both impugned orders. The matter was remitted to the Assistant Commissioner, Tuticorin III Assessment Circle, for fresh adjudication. This reconsideration is subject to the petitioner depositing 100% of the disputed tax confirmed under the order dated 23.09.2023 (challenged in WP(MD)No.22361 of 2026) within thirty days. The petitioner must also submit a detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 06.07.2023, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order dated 23.09.2023 as an addendum. Upon compliance, the respondent shall pass a fresh order on merits within three months. Failure to comply with these conditions would allow the respondent to proceed with recovery as if the writ petitions were dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that orders confirming identical demands twice are illegal and liable to be quashed, with a direction for fresh adjudication upon pre-deposit and submission of reply.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned orders, dated 28.12.2023 and 23.09.2023, suffer from duplication of demand, rendering them illegal? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the demands confirmed in both impugned orders were identical, meaning the same tax liability was being sought to be recovered twice. This duplication, according to the petitioner, made the orders illegal and liable to be quashed. The petitioner also offered to deposit 100% of the disputed tax in one of the cases to facilitate a fresh adjudication. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state authorities. However, they were represented by learned counsel who took notice of the petitions.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Rule 142
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Mr.R.Parthiban, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondent in W.P.(MD)No.22329 of 2026. Ms.P.Sudarkodi Natchiyar, learned Government Advocate (Taxes), takes notice for the respondent in W.P. (MD)No.22361 of 2026. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the respective impugned orders passed by the respective respondents.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) for the respective respondents submitted that there is a duplication in the demand confirmed under the respective impugned orders dated 28.12.2023 and 23.09.2023. It is further submitted that the demands are identical and that the very same demand has been confirmed under both the impugned orders.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is willing to deposit 100% of the disputed tax in one of the cases as a condition for de novo adjudication. The learned counsel has also made an endorsement to that effect in the Court bundle in W.P.(MD)No.22361 of 2026, which is extracted below: “The petitioner will deposit 100% of the tax amount as per the direction of this Hon’ble Court for any one of the order in W.P.(MD)No.22329 of 2026, 22361 of 2026.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5. In view of the above, the impugned orders are quashed and the matter is remitted to the respondent in W.P.(MD)No.22361 of 2026, namely, the Assistant Commissioner, Tuticorin III Assessment Circle, Tuticorin, for passing a fresh order, subject to the petitioner depositing 100% of the disputed tax confirmed under the impugned order dated 23.09.2023, which is under challenge in W.P.(MD)No.22361 of 2026, in cash through the petitioner's Electronic Cash Ledger within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Within the said period, the petitioner shall also submit a detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 06.07.2023, together with all supporting documents, to substantiate its case, treating the impugned order dated 23.09.2023 as an addendum to the said Show Cause Notice dated 06.07.2023. 7. Upon compliance with the above conditions, the respondent in W.P. (MD)No.22361 of 2026 shall consider the petitioner's reply and pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the reply and completion of the pre-deposit. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8. If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the above stipulations, the respondent in W.P.(MD)No.22361 of 2026 shall be at liberty to proceed with the recovery of the tax in accordance with law, as if these Writ Petitions had been dismissed in limine.
Needless to state, before passing any adverse order, the respondent shall afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
These Writ Petitions stand disposed of on the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 06-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No smn2 To 1.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tuticorin III Assessment Circle, Tuticorin, Tamilnadu 2.The Assistant Commissioner Tuticorin III Assessment Circle, Tuticorin, Tamilnadu https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN J. smn2 WP(MD)Nos.22329 and 22361 of 2026 06-08-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.